The effects of accessing L1 versus L2 definitional glosses on L2 learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of different types of glosses and no-gloss condition on second language vocabulary learning. There were totally 81 high school students involved in the study, and they were randomly divided into three groups: L1-gloss group, L2-gloss group, and No-gloss group. These three groups were subjected to three main tests: reading comprehension test, immediate vocabulary test, and delayed vocabulary test. They were also asked to complete a student opinion questionnaire to examine their opinions about the use of the glosses and the types of glosses. In order to find out the differences in these test scores for three different groups, a one-way between-groups ANOVA with planned comparisons and a mixed between-within ANOVA were conducted. Secondly, word retention was tested by looking at the difference in the number of words gained between immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test again through the same mixed between-within ANOVA. Results indicated that there was a significant difference between glossed and no gloss groups on each test. For each condition, L1 gloss group had the highest mean score followed by L2 gloss group. It was also found that there was a significant decrease in the scores for each gloss condition after a two-week time interval. The results of the student opinion questionnaire revealed that students prefer glosses in reading texts by mostly favouring L1 glosses over L2 glosses.

Multimedia Glosses for Enhancing EFL Students’ Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention

“…A possible explanation for the results of this study is that glossing difficult vocabulary helps learners acquire their meaning. This was proved by some studies (e.g., Al-Ghafli & Hussain, 2011;Arpaci, 2016;Azari, 2012;Azari, Abdullah, Heng, & Hoon, 2012a;Ghabanchi & Ayoubi, 2012;Ghahari & Heidarolad, 2015;Huang, 2010;Jung, 2016;Ko, 2012;Salehi & Naserieh, 2013;Todd, 2014;Tong, 2017;Zhao & Ren, 2017). This also goes along with Barcroft's (2015) belief that activities which introduce the meanings of words to learners in the early phase of learning the words enhance the acquisition of word meanings.…”

Teacher’s Code Switching in EFL Undergraduate Classrooms in Libya: Functions and Perceptions

“…The review of the literature revealed that many studies tackled the issue of classroom CS from various aspects (Arpac, 2016;Macaro & Tian, 2015;Simasiku, Kasanda, & Smit, 2015;Thompson & Harrison, 2014;Tian & Macaro, 2012). The most common aspects are as follows: the functions and practicality of teacher's CS, the reasons for classroom CS, and the classroom participants' attitudes to CS.…”

Glossing and vocabulary learning

“…It needs to be reiterated that, in some studies, the non-glossed reading condition was not altogether realistic. If it is deemed necessary to add a gloss per every 20 or so running words in order to make the text comprehensible for a given learner group (e.g., Arpaci, 2016;Azari et al, 2012;Jacobs et al, 1994;Sadeghi & Ahmadi, 2012), then the flipside of the coin is that, WITHOUT the glosses, the text is probably not going to be comprehensible. A well-informed teacher would probably not choose such material for their students' unassisted reading in the first place.…”

“…It is surprising in this regard, that information about the L2 glosses that were used is absent in most of the research reports (e.g., Arpaci, 2016;Ertürk, 2016;Farvardin & Biria, 2012;Jacobs et al, 1994;Rouhi & Mohebbi, 2012;Shiki, 2008;Taheri & Zade, 2014;Zarei & Hasani, 2011) while others provide just one or a couple of examples (e.g., Mitarai & Aizawa, 1999;Miyasako, 2002;Salehi & Naserieh, 2013). This makes it impossible to evaluate how clear to the study participants these L2 definitions were in comparison with the L1 glosses.…”

“…If learners (especially at low proficiency levels) are less inclined to inspect L2 glosses than L1 glosses for the above reasons, then this may hold true in particular when the reading activity is done under time pressure and when an excessive number of glosses is available. 8 It is indeed striking that the studies that showed poor effectiveness of L2 glosses compared with L1 glosses tend to be ones that used reading materials with a high glossing density (e.g., Arpaci, 2016;Yoshii, 2006).…”